Trump did well because he appealed to the long-suppressed anger of bigots, not because of GamerGate.

Racism, sexism, and xenophobia never died out because the laws changed. Trump appeals to the the populist notions ("make America great again", as compared to when? The 60s? The 70s? The 80s?) that enable bigotry and incites a nationalistic fervor much like historical and contemporary populists before him. He simply gave them an outlet to vocalize their hate publicly.

GameGate is nothing compared to the prejudism that still permeates American society.

You wouldn't think that reading game media sites. They have turned GG into such a huge boogeyman that you would think we were on the same plane as Skull and Bones Secret Society. According to feminist bloggers, because gamers are "mostly white cis heterosexual males, they control everything and chase all women out of their boys only club".

I know nobody cares. Reminds me of a certain poem. They likely won't care until every game they play gives them multiple objectives where you get dialogues you can't skip about how to treat women, how to treat minorities, how people need to be inclusive, how you should feel horrible for liking violent games, et. al. Well, they [AAA companies] don't care about what gamers (their consumers) think, a lot of AAA devs met with Anita and praised the ideas she had for changing games. This is a woman that has repeatedly made it clear she wants games like Super Mario and Legend of Zelda to never be made again. She is the poster child of Feminism for the past three years, a woman that promotes a hive mindset instead of a woman's choice.

That just tells me they don't look at any game review sites or media because GG is regularly brought up in articles or flat out blamed for some new atrocity. NYT, Washington Post, Huffington Post, Kotaku, and Polygon are obsessed with blaming GG for something. Gamespot, IGN, and PCGamer even had articles about them a few times. Hell, some critics have blamed GG for why they didn't have the guts to criticize Anita's videos (as touched on in this article).

I know NPR covered GamerGate as did BBC and Al Jazeera, but the later two have had many question their ethics because of one sided coverage of it (I think that was more BBC than Al Jazeera, as the video below does have a segment of pro-gg talking; first one I've seen in the two years it has gone on). The media claims they can't talk to anyone in GamerGate because they are all anonymous, which is a lie because I've contacted all the media outlets explaining that I'm a supporter of it and use my real face and name on my Twitter account. I'm not alone, Mark Kern, Derek Smart, Shoe0nHead, Thunderf00t, Sargon of Akkad, Total Biscuit, and many others are open about who they are, but the media still claimed we are anonymous and unable to talk to them.

One video above that you refused to watch pointed out flaws with Al Jazeera coverage of GamerGate.

No the difference is that you and everyone else don't care that sites that are supposed to be promoting games to the consumers (gamers), instead spend their time writing articles shitting on their reader base. Being a hobbyist game dev I take issue with that.

That was my pushing point as to why I became pro-GG. The issue then became AAA devs flat out told any indie dev or hobbyist like myself that we are black listed for siding with the gamers.

I think most people have the right intentions, and I extend this to bamccaig and Spectre Phoenix. It's just they have immense biases they refuse to acknowledge.

(Note: I have a great many biases too. It's not possible to evaluate everything objectively).

I ran a test on this myself when the quote news unquote broke: http://pastebin.com/5FFq0uDf

It was immediately obvious there was no bias.

Oh, I completely understand. There's a difference between border control and immigration policies and the claims that Mexico is sending rapists, or that Mexicans are taking our jobs. The wall is driven by nationalistic and xenophobic fears. The rhetoric is what matters.

Definitely. It's just a lot of fears are simply based on non-existent threats. Muslim immigrants seeking asylum from war torn countries undergo an extreme vetting process. Terrorists are not getting through, and to be fair, a lot of innocents wouldn't either.

The categorization for Muslim is racially and ethnically driven. I've witnessed people calling Obama Muslim. Why is that, if not for his name and skin color? Why are Sikhs the victims of hate crimes supposedly targeting Muslims? (Not that anyone should be a target of a hate crime).

Frankly, I don't know. I also hold the belief that we can evaluate actions by their outcomes, and non-racist actions can have racist outcomes and vice versa. For example, affirmative action is a racist action that has a positive, non-racist outcome, while eliminating 'forced busing' to save costs is a neutral action with a racist outcome (increased segregation in schools).

Yes. The issues blacks face is still unprecedented. That's why Black Lives Matter is a thing, and why antagonistic statements like All Lives Matter are disingenuous.

I was genuinely shocked when I saw numbers on wealth among white and black Americans. This is an okay source. The biggest one, personally: "The report found that in 2013, white households in the U.S. had a median wealth of $144,200 -- almost 13 times the median wealth of black households at $11,200."

We'd get Mike Pence, who is also another disgusting person. At least Trump isn't against LGBT. And unlike Trump, Pence isn't an outsider to the GOP. No, Pence, like Cruz, is the modern GOP in human form.

What?

Are you using liberal as an insult? Are BBC and Al Jazeera liberal? And did you know I am so far to the left that the views expressed in NPR are closer to Fox News than they are to my own?

This piece, "Are We Wrong to Think We're Right?", is very interesting. You might want to listen. In fact, anyone participating in this discussion might want to.

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater much?

That's not fair. Those comments come from people who have seen ridiculous BLM protests, of which there is apparently no shortage. Take the Heathrow one for example: whatever your cause, obstructing a highway and interfering with uninvolved people's plans is unlikely to be justified, and it's not as if anti-black sentiment is tolerated anyway in this country, so what are they trying to achieve - if not to exalt black people as far as possible and trample on white people, or even just because it's an easy movement to associate with if they're looking for something, anything, to fight for and give their lives meaning?

Point being: yes, there are problems in black communities that need solving, but Black Lives Matter doesn't seem to be going the right way about fixing it, unless you can show otherwise? So of course people are going to speak out against what they see of BLM.

More general point: when we drill down into these points, we tend to find common ground, but I feel as if we're constantly starting from a position that involves using the classic labels (racism, sexism, Islamophobia and so on), and I don't enjoy constantly trying to rein it in and suggest a more balanced view. Can't we just treat people as individuals and stop with the opportunistic labelling?

[EDIT]
I mean it - disingenuous is a very serious accusation as it refers to deliberate deception, and you just used it on a large group of people who absolutely have the best intentions. Something's not right there.

Well I could hate it for what one liberal said about them: "TED Talks is just a conference for rich liberals to circle jerk themselves and present ideas without challenge."

At least I stated they contradict themselves from one year to the next. It's a broad statement, but at least it was achieved from watching TED Talks on Youtube for a few years.

Says the liberal who only pushes liberal media and refuses to view anything outside of those liberal sites. Even when I linked to Chris Ray Gun's (who is liberal) video pointing out flaws in Al Jazeera's coverage of GamerGate during one of their videos, you refused because it wasn't one of your sites.

Better question is why do you keep taking it as an insult? I'm just using the proper label for both you and the sites political leanings.

Difference is you make yourself seem like you are full of shit. "I don't watch videos...here watch this video I like that preaches what I believe!"

You don't say! I thought there was a factory in Washington, DC that had a cookie cutter marked liberal that you all came from! I'm so glad you cleared that up, it's like the people who identify as the label are as varied as the populace of the United States.

Careful, according to feminist you are mansplaining. You just became part of the problem, you must be a secret agent of the patriarchy! Is this the point where, because you disagree with me I whine about harassment?

Videos often provides no sources, use rhetorical tricks over genuine substance, and inherently are hostile to efficient querying/skimming. Not to mention I provide Google revenue and personal data by watching them.

To be blunt, you would not use a random YouTube video as a source in any remotely serious debate.

I watched the video Bruce Perry linked to earlier, and it simply concreted my hostility towards videos as a discussion format. There was 5 minutes of content explained over 30 minutes. Absurd!